HN user

warbler73

81 karma
Posts0
Comments75
View on HN
No posts found.

Most people satisfy the "two forms of identification" requirement

53% of US adult citizens have a passport as of 11/22. Most of them have a state ID as well. So yes, a bare majority of citizens will be allowed internet access.

I have never seen a library card or insurance card with a photo id that is accepted as id at all, much less valid id. Do you have examples and if so how common is this in Texas?

"Man's got a point. Two is no good. Let's make it three photo ids." - Texas Legislator Tex

"Hole up there son, we don't want to have to revisit this every year to patch holes. Let's put in a safety margin: Five photo ids." - Texas Legislator Champ

I like to roll this way! (Just not at work.)

    SELECT
      employee_name
    , company_name
    , salary
    , state_code
    , city
      FROM 'employees';

he implicitly assigned a transferable non-exclusive license to Mojang

This is almost correct. If this was decided in the US, his discussions and acceptance of payment gave Mojang a non-transferable license. During the sale to Microsoft, he was a stakeholder. Microsoft failed to acquire a license, which was why they were trying to force him to sign a contract with terms - of perpetual transfer - that he did not agree to. Mojang needed that signed otherwise Microsoft needed to negotiate a license or purchase from him directly. Microsoft did not do this so they don't own it nor did they have the right to distribute his work until he public-domained it. They are still guilty of infringements up to the date he public domained it, but he seems to have released he right to pursue this as part of this essay.

In the US for copyright to transfer he'd need to be an employee and writing part of his work duties, in which case it is work for hire, or if he is a contractor they'd need a signed contract saying the contractor was performing this as work for hire, or a contract explicitly transferring ownership. They did pay him for it so Mojang had an implied license to use it but he retains ownership.

When Mojang sold Minecraft to Microsoft, they did not own the copyright and did not have a contract saying they have the right to transfer their implied license, therefore Microsoft actually is violating copyright here.

Source: I went through exactly this same legal scenario and won.

Yes. I've been booking back country camping and trail access for a couple of years now and at no time did I suspect the money was going anywhere other than the National Park Service and BLM to support the programs and sites. I never would have imagined significant amounts, in some cases the majority of funds collected at a .gov park service site was going to a for profit defense contractor. In fact the site states in places that fees go to support the parks. No where does it say fees go to support for profit defense contractors.

Basically we are talking about TV dinners and fast food. Meat is cheaper and better in this realm than the expensive and highly processed vegetarian stuff.

I'm fine with either but I don't eat much fast food or TV dinners.

For homemade the processed fake meat is more expensive and harder to work with than just grilling some steaks.

if he's so certain of his innocence and has all this supporting evidence

The claim is that he is a child pornographer and has taken sexually explicit photos of children for prurient purposes. There is no evidence of this and if Google had it they should report the evidence.

You instead keep repeating things like "if he's so certain of his innocence and has all this supporting evidence...", implying that since he is not suing Google that there must be something to this.

Your shtick here reminds me of Musk's accusations of pedophilia against Vernon Unsworth.

The Dad has legal path(s) to take if he feels he was truly wronged. Paths that would ultimately cost nothing if he prevailed. Paths that would likely force Google to undo their decision if Dad's statements are in fact the truth and Google has no other data/evidence.

San Francisco Police Department:

“I determined that the incident did not meet the elements of a crime and that no crime occurred,” Mr. Hillard wrote in his report. The police had access to all the information Google had on Mark and decided it did not constitute child abuse or exploitation.

What more do you want from him Alupis? He was exonerated but you are suggesting he did not "do any of that" (false) to clear his name. Why would you say this given the article already rules it out?